Computational construction grammar aims to provide concrete processing models that operationalise construction grammar accounts of the different aspects of language. This paper discusses the computational mechanisms that allow construction grammar models to exhibit, to a certain extent, the creativity and inventiveness that is observed in human language use. It addresses two main types of language-related creativity. The first type concerns the ‘free combination of constructions,’ which gives rise to the open-endedness of language. The second type concerns the ‘appropriate violation of usual constraints’ that permits language users to go beyond what is possible when adhering to the usual constraints of the language, and be truly creative by relaxing these constraints and by introducing novel constructions. All mechanisms and examples discussed in this paper are fully operationalised and implemented in Fluid Construction Grammar.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 732942. The authors would like to thank Thomas Hoffmann for the organization of an inspiring summer workshop on construction grammar and creativity, as well as all researchers who participated in this workshop.
Bergen, Benjamin and Nancy Chang (2005). “Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding.” Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman, eds. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147–190.10.1075/cal.3.08berSearch in Google Scholar
Beuls, Katrien, Remi van Trijp, and Pieter Wellens (2012). “Diagnostics and Repairs in Fluid Construction Grammar.” Luc Steels and Manfred Hild, eds. Language Grounding in Robots. Berlin: Springer, 215–234.10.1007/978-1-4614-3064-3_11Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. and Ivan. A. Sag (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications/Center for the Study of Language and Information.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects and the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Feldman, Jerome, Ellen Dodge, and John Bryant (2009). “Embodied Construction Grammar.” Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 121–146.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0006Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi (1994). On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Steels, Luc and Remi van Trijp (2011). “How to Make Construction Grammars Fluid and Robust.” Luc Steels, ed. Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 301–330.10.1075/cal.11.16steSearch in Google Scholar
Stickles, Elise, David Oana, Ellen K. Dodge, and Jisup Hong (2016). “Formalizing Contemporary Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Constructions and Frames 8.2, 166–213.10.1075/cf.8.2.03stiSearch in Google Scholar
Van Eecke, Paul and Katrien Beuls (2017). “Meta-Layer Problem Solving for Computational Construction Grammar.” The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding Technical Report SS-17-02. Stanford: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 258–265.Search in Google Scholar
Van Trijp, Remi (2012). “A Reflective Architecture for Robust Language Processing and Learning.” L. Steels, ed. Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin: Springer, 51–74.10.1007/978-3-642-34120-5_3Search in Google Scholar
Wiggins, Geraint, Peter Tyack, Constance Scharff, and Martin Rohrmeier (2015). “The Evolutionary Roots of Creativity: Mechanisms and Motivations.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 370, 20140099.10.1098/rstb.2014.0099Search in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston